Core ideas
What is matter Particles(matter) are eigenvalues of a wave equation(http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xf1ptt_the-primacy-of-consciousness-4-of-7_techundefined). Matter consists of atoms, going smaller one eventually reaches nothing, which implies that matter consists of nothing. This makes no sense. Everything exists only in a mind * Language functions as the usage of the law of excluded middle(design/chance). What is the intended meaning of language if truth cannot be defined in it? Syllogism: * p1: Truth cannot be defined in language. * p2: We know that our descriptions are true. * c: Our descriptions are only metaphorical of some higher truth. * Everything experienced is expressed through the laws of logic. Concentrate/uniformity of energy over a medium in thermodynamics for example bootstraps the law of excluded third. * Objectivity does not need an object and testability is itself not testable. * If everything were to be Popper falsifiable, we would have a suspension of reason. * Asserting as Dawkins does that Pattern or design are not our only options violates the law of excluded middle(A or not A) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle * Logic cannot be tested ,as the verification would have to use logic. * Anything that is obvious is circular, only knowing everything prevents the obvious from being arbitrary. * God's existence is as obvious as the laws of logic and thus cannot be proven. * If God our Father were capable of lying, he would be able to deceive himself and thus wouldn't be God. * The term 'science' must only be used a dissimilar term for induction. * The term Laws of nature is the reification of induction. * All concepts reduce to a usage of the law of excluded middle and all fallacies, paradoxes to a reification of the laws of logic. Adam Smith, Malthus(closed math set), Zeno, Barber, Crocodile dilemma all reified tautologies. * The law of excluded middle is the transcendent truth that enabled Godel's incompleteness theorem. * Information is the representation of something other than itself, anything represents either itself or something else other that itself. This self/other uses the law of excluded middle like Induction is used and not experienced. * God exists because it is impossible for him not to exist. (Impossibility of the contrary) * "I Am That I Am" is the Virtuous Tautology that enables expression of experiences. * Gen.1, Rev.22, Exodus 3, Heb.6 is a trinity of logic: Law of Virtuous Identity(Exodus 3), Excluded Middle(Alpha/Omega,Day/Night Gen.1, Rev.22) and noncontradiction(Heb.6). Laws of logic * The Laws of Logic are the Agrippian bootstrapped fabric of our language. * There can't be physical evidence for God(Special pleading, in the same way the the laws of logic have no evidence. God is the evidence for the very concept of evidence and thus God can't have evidence for himself , preventing regression of evidences. * Regression of evidences are prevented by having no evidence. * The sophistication and complexity for the justification of a world view is inversely proportional to its Agrippian insight. * "I Am That I Am" is God's name for ever and memorial unto all generations: an Agrippian memorial. * "I Am That I Am" is the virtuous tautology that justifies the virtuous circularity of God. * Facts and evidences(fossils) do not give us the capacity to reason, rather we impose a set of presuppositional beliefs on the evidences. * We don't have knowledge but a set of beliefs. * We don't know whether a single fossil was the ancestor of anything that made it to reproductive age. Using the fossils as evidence for adaptation or evolution is rhetorical circularity. * All attempts at refuting the Christian mythological archetype, bootstraps the archetype. * Recorded human history extends back only 6000 years because man was created 6000 years ago. * The solution to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox like with Zeno's paradoxes will be metaphysical and not mathematical. The paradox(raven) shows that there must be a Godelian transcendent truth we invoke when using reasoning. * The reification of time results in the denial of free will. * As with Zeno's paradoxes, the solution to Dembski's design inference is metaphysical and not mathematical, his math research is irrelevant. Design is not an empirical or measurable concept. * Free will prevents Agrippian regress of volition. * You cannot reach a point in time the same way a location is reached. Location is experienced but not time. * The universe is a holographic projection from the edge of the Godelian wall and not the edge of the universe. Our ultimate reality isn't a projection from a two dimensional surface(edge of universe) but the two dimensional, binary Platonic law of excluded middle(Gen1 and Rev.22, the First and the Last). (reaction to Susskind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU6yCD_sEvU 8min) * Contradictions don't exist, they are the result of faulty premises. George Berkeley Syllogism: * p1: The laws of logic exist only in a mind. * p2: These laws are used to express our experiences * C: Experiences, such as heat and matter exist only in a mind. The syllogism is a deductive argument and not inductive. Induction is a generalization of past experiences. Premise one and two aren't experienced but true by necessity. William Lane Craig stated that in a deductive argument, if the premises are true the conclusion must be true, not so with an inductive argument. No matter how many times a white swan was observed, it could never be ruled out that a black swan could exist. The problem with this is that under Induction the argument is made that deduction is in fact based on induction. * p1: We inductively use our reasoning to justify our reasoning in a circular manner, assuming that our reasoning was valid in the past. * p2: To make a deductive argument, we had to use our reasoning. * C: Induction enables deduction, like unfalsifiability enables the expression of falsifiability Induction * Induction, because it is either virtuously circular(Gen 8 induction) or rhetorical can only be used, not experienced. * Materialists are using volitionalistic language to express a world view where volition or will are illusions, resulting in Meaningless sentences. * Our usage of induction is justified by God , all his conclusions are contained in his premises by necessity because he knows everything. * Calvin's predestination makes the effects of faith unfalsifiable and facilitates the Retrospective determination fallacy. * Deriving conclusions from premises applies only to finite knowledge, under infinite knowledge all conclusions are contained in the premises by necessity. * Tautologies are the map to the territory of our experience, Zeno reified the law of excluded middle with his paradoxes. * Falsifiability isn't falsifiable, like logic isn't verifiable,preventing Agrippian regression of falsifiability. * Attempting to prove God's existence is like setting out to prove Napoleon existed, it is an attempt to make God look ridiculous. This argument is from Kierkegaard and is the first presuppositional argument I could find before Van Til, Bahnsen notes. It seems as though Kierkegaard wasn't Calvinistic,but I am not sure(Calvinism is a doctrine of devils). He had such a profound influence on Wittgenstein, that Wittgenstein went through the trouble of learning Danish just to read him in the original. The Kierkegaardian presuppositionalism is evident in the works of Wittgenstein(references to supplied later). Failure to comprehend Presuppositionalism resulted in philosophers not appreciating the presup. passages in Wittgenstein's works. Limit of infinity The vast expanse of the universe exists only as an idea, not as actual matter. syllogism: * P1: The limits of our Platonic, antonymic language is the limit of our knowledge. (reaction to Wittgenstein) * P2: Infinity derives its meaning as the negation of finite. * C: Infinity is contained by our Platonic language. Irreducible complexity * Irreducible complexity or Irreducible Functionality is a usage of the law of excluded middle similar to how Induction is used to express falsifiable experiences. Dembski's Intelligent design movement is incorrect to view it as a falsifiable concept and have done great harm by this. * Intelligent design is a dissimilar term for IC, neither are falsifiable, which prevents Agrippian regression of design. * Design or function like induction isn't detected but used to ratiocinate about our detections. * Intelligent design is not a testable concept, it is what we use to express judgment over what appears designed or not. Flow of time Syllogism: * p1: Time is used to designate an experience. * p2: Laws of logic are used to express an experience. * C: Time is a generalization of the law of excluded middle. * None of your experiences was the experience of the flow of time, because time is a before/after concept, an imposition of the law of excluded middle. Time marks the point of an experience such as the heat of the sun and therefore its flow can't be experienced. * All experiences are expressed by that which cannot be experienced: the laws of logic. * Motion is a dissimilar term for here/there, this can't be divided by the law of excluded middle. * Design is a usage of the law of excluded middle, similar to how induction is used and not experienced.(Intelligent design) * All of language functions as the usage of the laws of logic and specifically the law of excluded middle. Natural selection Entropy, is a measure of the concentrate in a system containing energy and NOT information. Information has no physical location, energy does. Shannon's paper deals with communication, not pragmatics. The less concentrated the energy and more dispersed over the medium, the greater is the system's entropy. The concept of entropy is useful in the physical sciences, particularly in thermodynamics (the study of heat processes). The terms also creates confusion between the process of reconstructing a small sample of energy(photons, electrons) transmitted, at the receiving transceiver(i to v conversion) and the concept of information,pragmatics. Circuits don't have intent, you do. * Information, like matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is only expressed. (First law of information) <=> first law of thermodynamics. * Second law of thermodynamics applies in both open and closed systems, because in all systems the tendency is for energy to become uniform over the medium (increase in entropy). * Entropy, like "non-linear" and order is a weasel word that lends itself to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy. * All confusions and philosophical problems reduces to that of language. * You are not adapted to anything, but only express your attributes. * The oxymoron term Natural selection is the metaphor for Unintentional adaptation(acquisition of attributes). Adaptation is the effect, evolutionary theory invokes the effect as the cause. Darwin stated that ns is the doctrine of Malthus applied to the vegetable and animal kingdom. Malthus reified a closed mathematical, obfuscating the underlying Agrippian circularity(adaptation, therefore adaptation) and hence the futility of attempting to derive a mechanism. * Any perceived mechanism in evolutionary theory is a cause, effect inversion. * Fitness, DRS, ns, evolution etc. are all dissimilar terms for the Agrippian premise of adaptation or acquisition of attributes. Asking what does 'fitness' mean(undefined in evolution journals) is asking what does adaptation mean. A lexicon of terms are spawned to obfuscate the circularity of adaptation, wedged between adaptation premise and conclusion are rhetorical tautologies (Claim of logic). * Natural Selection as some sort of universal mechanism is as implausible as a single differential equation explaining all of physics(David Berlinski) and thus is a Claim of logic. * Darwin took a Claim of logic and invoked it as a force. Godel * You can't prove anything if people know that you feel you have something to prove. https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/543404830870765568 * The only way that it could be known that the person was a knight from the Knights and Knaves Godel example was if it could not be proven that the person was a knight. Analogous to this, the only way that we know God exists, is because it is impossible to prove that He exists, as we are unable to prove the laws of logic that we bootstrap into our language to express the concept of God our Father. Logical fallacies Numbers are an extension of the law of excluded middle, with '7' is meant either an increase from 6 or regression from 8 for example. The laws of logic enable the expression of the experience and numbers the ratiocination about the measurement: numbers and laws of logic cannot be experienced nor measured, preventing infinite regress (Fleeming . These laws only exist in a mind and aren't contingent on human minds, before the arrival of human minds the universe couldn't have both existed and not existed at the same time and manner(law of non-contradiction). Because we use them to express our experiences , it means our experiences also exist only in a mind(George Berkeley), preventing the reification of these laws. When Dan Barker stated to Bruggencate that he could be wrong about anything he did not think to apply the logic to the very assertion itself. The act of doubting is itself certain - certainty of the doubt. In order to be uncertain about everything, one must be certain about one thing,namely the assertion itself. Hence the position that one could be wrong about everything is self-refuting. [[Zeno's paradoxes :Zeno's point with his paradoxes was to ask: why is there nothing in between nothing and something? * Motion is an experience and not a tautological number, numbers are used to express said experience, Zeno reified the map. 119. http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdfs/berkeley1710_4.pdf ".....Arithmetic has been thought to have for its object abstract ideas of number. A considerable part of speculative knowledge is supposed to consist in understanding the properties and mutual relations of numbers. The belief in the pure and intellectual nature of numbers in the abstract has won for them the esteem of those thinkers who put on a show of having an uncommon subtlety and elevation of thought. It has put a price on the most trifling numerical theorems that are of no practical use and serve only to pass the time; and it has infected the minds of some people so much that they have dreamed of mighty mysteries involved in numbers, and tried to explain natural things by means of them. But if we look into our own thoughts, and consider the doctrines I have laid down, we may come to have a low opinion of those high flights and abstractions, and to look on all researches into numbers as mere earnest trivialities insofar as they aren’t practically useful in improving our lives....." ".....124 . Nothing can be more obvious to me than that the extended things I have in view are nothing but my own ideas, and it is equally obvious that I can’t break any one of my ideas down into an infinite number of other ideas—which is to say that none of them is infinitely divisible. If ‘finite extension’ means something distinct from a finite idea, I declare that I don’t know what it means, and so cannot affirm or deny anything regarding it. But if the terms ‘extension’, ‘parts’, and the like are given any meaning that we can conceive, that is, are taken to stand for ideas, then to say ‘a finite quantity or extension consists of infinitely many parts’ is so obvious a contradiction that everyone sees at a glance that it is so ...." Zeno's arrow exists only as an idea, his idea cannot be divided into infinite number of other ideas. Motion isn't a number, like experience isn't logic, the map isn't the territory. Zeno's paradoxes commits the Reification fallacy of the law of excluded middle. Numbers and physics equations are the map to the territory of our experience, but not the experience. Sometimes the interaction of matter and energy corresponds to a tautology but not under all conditions. 1+1 apple = 2 apples under the force of gravity, but under the force of a blender blade it equals one unit of juice(1+1=1). When we ratiocinate about our experiences with apples, we are not faced with a seeming insurmountable philosophical problem as with Zeno, because mathematical tautologies(laws of logic) are not being reified or made concrete as with Zeno. Malthus population theory derives from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. I am not sure about this, but I think Smith and Malthus committed the reification fallacy. The structure of their argument corresponds to a tautology(apples example) under certain conditions(closed mathematical set), but not all conditions. This is why the question was raised as to how Malthus could have been shown to be wrong by experimental observation as published in journal papers, if Malthus theory was a tautology. My pending solution to this is that once the subtle reification is unearthed, the tautology question is not raised, as it isn't raised with the apples example. Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' reified a closed mathematical set, the actual reason for economic growth is technological breakthroughs such as the computer. Intra competition is but a peripheral matter, a side-effect. On RTnews a guest said "The economy must liberate us and not dominate us". An economy like a university is not a physical institution, his economy statement reified the economy. Knowledge paradox Knowledge''' paradox''' must be added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes In order to know anything you must know everything, to prevent what you don't know from contradicting what you do know. We know for certain that we don't know everything, how could we know this if we have to know everything in the first place? Syllogism: * p1: We are certain that we don't know everything. * p2: To be certain about anything you must know everything * C: We have been revealed limited knowledge by God who knows everything, which implies that he has made his existence obvious and that attempting to prove his existence is as futile as proving the laws of logic. Bias Event the assertion that we must not be biased, is biased for not being biased. Everybody is biased, biases change. Forces are not logic http://recursed.blogspot.com/2006/07/pamela-winnicks-science-envy.html "....Some theories are better supported than others; only the really well-supported theories, such as gravity and evolution, can be considered as similar to facts, keeping in mind that in science every explanation is provisional...." Shallit confuses a force - gravity- with a premise 'Evolution'. Under the rubric of evolution is the premise that the present attributes were not in the distant past, there is no falsifiable mechanism theory as to how the conclusion that attributes were acquired from nothing could have transpired. Can prove non-existence of something http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C64tuvmZwgc wl craig fitness fitness, variation etc. are all dissimilar terms for adaptation, which is the acquisition conclusion from the premise that the present attributes were not in the distant past. Evolutionary narrative invokes the conclusion as the mechanism. What is needed ia a mechanism to bind the conclusion to the premise, which Agrippa has shown to be impossible: the more complicated your argument, the more obfuscated the underlying circularity. Adaption , therefore Adaptation. Because of God, therefore God. Either rhetorical or virtuous. Links * http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2304/1/zeno_maths_review_metaphysics_alba_papa_grimaldi.pdf Math solutions of Zeno misses his point * http://thisislanduniverse.com/elaborations-and-musings/the-reification-of-time-and-space/ Reification of time and uses 'scientific' in the article way to much. * http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/viewFile/2621/2062 Note the reference book list at the end on logical fallacies and circularity, circular reasoning. Category:Logical fallacies Category:Kierkegaard Category:Wittgenstein